Pratt and Pratt

In *Pratt & Pratt* [2011] FamCA 606, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Husband seeking to vary or stay consent orders made in November 2010, which required him to make significant property and maintenance payments to the Wife. The Wife sought dismissal of the Husband's application and an increase in maintenance payments.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Wife was living in a de facto relationship, and if so, whether this disentitled her to maintenance under the consent orders or required a reassessment of the support amount based on her partner's capacity to support her. The Court also had to determine if the Husband had sufficient funds to comply with the existing orders, and whether his application to stay the payments was appropriate given the circumstances.

Justice Bell found that the Husband's attempt to unilaterally reduce payments based on his belief that the Wife had removed property was an improper method of varying a consent order. Regarding the de facto relationship, the Court applied the principles outlined in *Jonah v White* [2011] FamCA 221 and s 4AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering factors such as common residence, the nature of the relationship, financial dependence, and mutual commitment. On the evidence, the Court was satisfied that while a sexual relationship and some financial interdependence existed, there was insufficient evidence of a mutual commitment to a shared life to establish a de facto relationship. The Court also found, based on the Husband's bank statements, that he had ample funds to meet his maintenance obligations.

Consequently, the Court dismissed all of the Husband's applications. The Court ordered the Husband to pay maintenance of $1,500 per week to the Wife, commencing from 2 August 2011, with subsequent payments to be made monthly in the amount of $6,500.